"Reactive" means, like everything else, part of the determined universe of cause and effect.
"Psychic" implies soul, an immaterial energy beyond or beside reality.
Stop changing the goalpost, and stop conflating "Panpsychism" with "Pan-reactive"

My argument in favour of pan-reactivity was clearly providing the reasoning for my rejection of panpsychism. There is no other logical way to interpret my post.

Then we agree that pan-reactive could be applied to a completely non conscious world, cold, hard, with utterly deterministic and indifferent.

Sure, not only that, but the above can even sometimes apply to non-conservatives :)

"Reactive" means, like everything else, part of the determined universe of cause and effect.
"Psychic" implies soul, an immaterial energy beyond or beside reality.
Stop changing the goalpost, and stop conflating "Panpsychism" with "Pan-reactive"

My argument in favour of pan-reactivity was clearly providing the reasoning for my rejection of panpsychism. There is no other logical way to interpret my post.

Then we agree that pan-reactive could be applied to a completely non conscious world, cold, hard, with utterly deterministic and indifferent.

All being is rooted in "space" or "spatial properties". This includes consciousness itself. It is in these respects that with both the subjective and objective (or the axiom, for axioms are consciousness) finds its roots in space. Considering that space manifests all "being", and the nature of space itself having the same degree of "consciousness" which composes "consciousness", by default all "reality" has some degree of consciousness to it.

In these respects, and this is a very simple argument, the case for Panspychism is...well...inevitable.

My argument in favour of pan-reactivity was clearly providing the reasoning for my rejection of panpsychism. There is no other logical way to interpret my post.

Then we agree that pan-reactive could be applied to a completely non conscious world, cold, hard, with utterly deterministic and indifferent.

All being is rooted in "space" or "spatial properties". This includes consciousness itself. It is in these respects that with both the subjective and objective (or the axiom, for axioms are consciousness) finds its roots in space. Considering that space manifests all "being", and the nature of space itself having the same degree of "consciousness" which composes "consciousness", by default all "reality" has some degree of consciousness to it.

In these respects, and this is a very simple argument, the case for Panspychism is...well...inevitable.

My argument in favour of pan-reactivity was clearly providing the reasoning for my rejection of panpsychism. There is no other logical way to interpret my post.

Then we agree that pan-reactive could be applied to a completely non conscious world, cold, hard, with utterly deterministic and indifferent.

All being is rooted in "space" or "spatial properties". This includes consciousness itself. It is in these respects that with both the subjective and objective (or the axiom, for axioms are consciousness) finds its roots in space. Considering that space manifests all "being", and the nature of space itself having the same degree of "consciousness" which composes "consciousness", by default all "reality" has some degree of consciousness to it.

In these respects, and this is a very simple argument, the case for Panspychism is...well...inevitable.

That is reductionism. It seems more likely that phenomena like life, consciousness and self awareness emerged rather than always being present.

Then we agree that pan-reactive could be applied to a completely non conscious world, cold, hard, with utterly deterministic and indifferent.

All being is rooted in "space" or "spatial properties". This includes consciousness itself. It is in these respects that with both the subjective and objective (or the axiom, for axioms are consciousness) finds its roots in space. Considering that space manifests all "being", and the nature of space itself having the same degree of "consciousness" which composes "consciousness", by default all "reality" has some degree of consciousness to it.

In these respects, and this is a very simple argument, the case for Panspychism is...well...inevitable.

That is reductionism. It seems more likely that phenomena like life, consciousness and self awareness emerged rather than always being present.

Not necessarily, the height of all experiences (specifically consciousness itself) is in a "unity" as "light". Light can comfortably argued as spatial unity considering all existence, both abstract and physical, stems from it or moves toward it. Even "reason" itself is equivocated to a form of light, hence "enlightenment".

Considering the all "life/consciousness/self-awareness" interacts through "space" and the observation of it the nature of self-awareness is an extension of space "curving in on itself" to maintain stability. This is strictly a structural extension of "1 universal point" in both form and function considering:

1) All self-awareness is a curvature of observation towards oneself, which geometrically reflects "circularity".

2) All awareness is a circulation of information between two or more points (we observe this in quantum mechanics).

3) All life manifests through cycles whether it is the act of reproduction as "recycling" of genes, the acts of eating/sex/etc. which operate through cycles, birth/death as cyclic movement of non-organic matter, etc.

Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then we agree that pan-reactive could be applied to a completely non conscious world, cold, hard, with utterly deterministic and indifferent.

All being is rooted in "space" or "spatial properties". This includes consciousness itself. It is in these respects that with both the subjective and objective (or the axiom, for axioms are consciousness) finds its roots in space. Considering that space manifests all "being", and the nature of space itself having the same degree of "consciousness" which composes "consciousness", by default all "reality" has some degree of consciousness to it.

In these respects, and this is a very simple argument, the case for Panspychism is...well...inevitable.

Actually "space" as the both the "root" and "apex" of all "being" gives definition to "being" and is in many cases can be considered synonymous with it. Why argue against circularity when it is the most unifying "form".

All forms of linear logic are inherently rooted and end in "paradoxes" as "circular" reasoning. Even the line as a strict geometric form cannot exist without the "point(s)" (a one dimensional form of the circle). Strict linear logic is a failure due to its inability to "self-reflect", which explains why much of western philosophy is "dead" and western culture (as an extension of it's philosophies) is dying.

Most western logic is inherently self-contradictory (logically regressive) due to its inability to self-reflect and admit is is paradoxical. The nature of reason is fundamentally found in the ability to observe the symmetry between paradoxes, and from this we observe "order".

Take for example your argument, you claim I did not "define" the first sentence property. However considering certain degrees of the nature of "definition" is observe through relation....well I observed that through the nature of "being" and "space". This is considering you provided no explanation for what the nature of "definition" is or what is constitutes. Frankly, your continual persistent use of ad-hominems shows your inability to actually contribute anything of value to the conversation.

All being is rooted in "space" or "spatial properties". This includes consciousness itself. It is in these respects that with both the subjective and objective (or the axiom, for axioms are consciousness) finds its roots in space. Considering that space manifests all "being", and the nature of space itself having the same degree of "consciousness" which composes "consciousness", by default all "reality" has some degree of consciousness to it.

In these respects, and this is a very simple argument, the case for Panspychism is...well...inevitable.

That is reductionism. It seems more likely that phenomena like life, consciousness and self awareness emerged rather than always being present.

Not necessarily, the height of all experiences (specifically consciousness itself) is in a "unity" as "light". Light can comfortably argued as spatial unity considering all existence, both abstract and physical, stems from it or moves toward it. Even "reason" itself is equivocated to a form of light, hence "enlightenment".

Which definition of light applies?

1. something that makes things visible or affords illumination
2. Physics. Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon.
2.a. a similar form of radiant energy that does not affect the retina, as ultraviolet or infrared rays.
3. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of sight.
4. an illuminating agent or source, as the sun, a lamp, or a beacon.
5. the radiance or illumination from a particular source
6. the illumination from the sun; daylight
7. daybreak or dawn.

Eodnhoj wrote:Considering the all "life/consciousness/self-awareness" interacts through "space" and the observation of it the nature of self-awareness is an extension of space "curving in on itself" to maintain stability. This is strictly a structural extension of "1 universal point" in both form and function considering:

1) All self-awareness is a curvature of observation towards oneself, which geometrically reflects "circularity".

2) All awareness is a circulation of information between two or more points (we observe this in quantum mechanics).

3) All life manifests through cycles whether it is the act of reproduction as "recycling" of genes, the acts of eating/sex/etc. which operate through cycles, birth/death as cyclic movement of non-organic matter, etc.

Sure, everything is cyclic in nature, which is basically in a constant state of turning inside out, both bodies and minds. A rock turns fully inside out over the course of its existence too, with all of its insides eventually distributed to the environment, but we are not saying the rock is a conscious system, and it's a stretch to say that it is even a living system, let alone conscious. The rock could form part of a conscious system, and rocks certainly act as substrates for living systems.

So rocks are reactive, not living (at least not until they achieve a certain size under certain conditions) or conscious. Bacteria are much more reactive than rocks and they are said to be alive, but not conscious. As you know.

Reactivity and simple life can only be thought of as conscious in a metaphorical sense, with mechanical and reflex responses being considered to be simple proto-consciousness as per Michio Kaku's conception:

Consciousness is all the feedback loops necessary to create a model of yourself in space, in relationship to others, and in time, especially forward in time. This means that animals are conscious, and we can even rank them numerically by counting the number of feedback loops involved in each of these behaviours. So a thermostat would have one unit of consciousness that measures temperature. A flower would have maybe 10 units of consciousness because it measures temperature, sunlight, gravity, moisture, things like that. A reptile would have even more, maybe several hundred, because it locates its position in space. Then monkeys are even higher than that because they have to locate their ranking in society via emotions.

If that's what you mean then our differences would probably be largely a matter of definition and nomenclature.

All being is rooted in "space" or "spatial properties". This includes consciousness itself. It is in these respects that with both the subjective and objective (or the axiom, for axioms are consciousness) finds its roots in space. Considering that space manifests all "being", and the nature of space itself having the same degree of "consciousness" which composes "consciousness", by default all "reality" has some degree of consciousness to it.

In these respects, and this is a very simple argument, the case for Panspychism is...well...inevitable.

Actually "space" as the both the "root" and "apex" of all "being" gives definition to "being" and is in many cases can be considered synonymous with it. Why argue against circularity when it is the most unifying "form".

That is reductionism. It seems more likely that phenomena like life, consciousness and self awareness emerged rather than always being present.

Not necessarily, the height of all experiences (specifically consciousness itself) is in a "unity" as "light". Light can comfortably argued as spatial unity considering all existence, both abstract and physical, stems from it or moves toward it. Even "reason" itself is equivocated to a form of light, hence "enlightenment".

Which definition of light applies?

1. something that makes things visible or affords illumination
2. Physics. Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon.
2.a. a similar form of radiant energy that does not affect the retina, as ultraviolet or infrared rays.
3. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of sight.
4. an illuminating agent or source, as the sun, a lamp, or a beacon.
5. the radiance or illumination from a particular source
6. the illumination from the sun; daylight
7. daybreak or dawn.

At minimum all of them, for they are merely grades of the same thing through their nature of relation. However we that being said:

1) Considering the nature of light from the perspective of "abstraction" we can observe the nature of light as a unifying "space" in the respect that all the illumination it provides allows us to "observe" the reflective qualities of "existences". "Reason" has always intuitively been link to "illumination" in that it observes the unity of all "being", with this "being" itself being a product of "reason".

Being as a product of "reason" or "rationality" is not far of a stretch as one might think. All being requires order to exist. All order is strictly symmetry or "ratios" of space. A universal ratio founded upon the dot/circle/sphere (The logos) reflecting upon itself not only maintains "reason" as itself but simultaneously extends "reason" to all "being" as an extension of itself. This space, as reason, is space as illumination for the nature of reasoning as the maintenance and observe of definition is inherently "illuminatory" itself. Reason and illumination cannot be separated.

2) Take the perspective of light as a "physical" substance. It merely breaks down to particle-waves. These particle waves in turn are just degrees of space relating. Observe a particle, wave, or both and fundamentally its breaks down to space as curving upon itself in an unstable/temporal manner. A study was done intended to measure the nature of how much space a particle consists of and it was found to be in the upper nineties. (here is a web page https://education.jlab.org/qa/how-much- ... space.html. It focuses on the hydrogen atom specifically arguing 99.99999% is space.) The "boundarie" lines which compose the particles are in turn composed of particulate which in turn are mostly space.)

All physicality is space curving upon itself in an unstable or temporal manner.

3) Take the example of color itself. All white light, when put through a prism as a divider, produces various grades of color. These colors all merely grades of a unified "white light".

Eodnhoj wrote:Considering the all "life/consciousness/self-awareness" interacts through "space" and the observation of it the nature of self-awareness is an extension of space "curving in on itself" to maintain stability. This is strictly a structural extension of "1 universal point" in both form and function considering:

1) All self-awareness is a curvature of observation towards oneself, which geometrically reflects "circularity".

2) All awareness is a circulation of information between two or more points (we observe this in quantum mechanics).

3) All life manifests through cycles whether it is the act of reproduction as "recycling" of genes, the acts of eating/sex/etc. which operate through cycles, birth/death as cyclic movement of non-organic matter, etc.

Sure, everything is cyclic in nature, which is basically in a constant state of turning inside out, both bodies and minds. A rock turns fully inside out over the course of its existence too, with all of its insides eventually distributed to the environment, but we are not saying the rock is a conscious system, and it's a stretch to say that it is even a living system, let alone conscious. The rock could form part of a conscious system, and rocks certainly act as substrates for living systems.

So rocks are reactive, not living (at least not until they achieve a certain size under certain conditions) or conscious. Bacteria are much more reactive than rocks and they are said to be alive, but not conscious. As you know.

Reactivity and simple life can only be thought of as conscious in a metaphorical sense, with mechanical and reflex responses being considered to be simple proto-consciousness as per Michio Kaku's conception:

Consciousness is all the feedback loops necessary to create a model of yourself in space, in relationship to others, and in time, especially forward in time. This means that animals are conscious, and we can even rank them numerically by counting the number of feedback loops involved in each of these behaviours. So a thermostat would have one unit of consciousness that measures temperature. A flower would have maybe 10 units of consciousness because it measures temperature, sunlight, gravity, moisture, things like that. A reptile would have even more, maybe several hundred, because it locates its position in space. Then monkeys are even higher than that because they have to locate their ranking in society via emotions.

Using your definition of "feedback loops" or "circularity" as a degree of consciousness then even "atoms" have a degree of consciousness due to their spin cycles...however a very minute one. At the macro level so due star's, however a very minute one. Kaku's conception of consciousness is dependent on the circularity of space, however I disagree with his measurement system in the respect that he does not give enough clarity as to how one "quantify" all feedback loops. Considering the nature of the "circle" has a random element to it, as evidenced through pi, quantifying it can be difficult because the "axioms" which determine the "loops" are in themselves "loops". Does one quantify those too?

The emphasis on a strict quantitative definition inevitable requires axioms of "quality" to ground it. In these respects, I do not fully agree with Kaku...however considering it is just an "example" you provided I am sure there is more to the argument.

If that's what you mean then our differences would probably be largely a matter of definition and nomenclature.

Considering the clarification given with the Kaku example, I would argue we are observing the same thing from angles which are very close to each other. In regards to the language we are using...it is not really "complex" on either of our parts. I would argue that it was all in the discourse. We keep discoursing until we find a common "median"...which in itself is a "point". In turn we form further axioms, etc.

All knowledge, at the end of the day, is dependent on "the discourse". This discourse is simply the observation of axioms until a medial "unifying" axiom is observed.

To summarize my self very briefly: All consciousness fundamentally breaks down to the curvature of space, which is space itself.

This curvature is "stable" through abstraction and is inherently illuminatory as its own nature. This illumination as "definition" equates illumination as "order" or "ratios".

This curvature is "fluxing/unstable" through matter and we can observe this through the nature of light, and the unobservable dark matter which is relates through the behavior of light.

This curvature as both "abstract" and "physical" synthesizes "consciousness" itself through the nature of the "axiom" or "self-evidence". In this respect all consciousness is the synthesis of further curvature as "dimensional limits" (for all being requires limits to maintain order) and "possible limits" (further unsynthesized limits).

Panpsychism as proposed in this article by Philip Roff attributes simple consciousness to a fundamental particle like electron. Double slit experiment with say electrons shows that wave-particle duality exists. Wave behaviour is found when observation is not made from which slit the particles emerge. But when observed at the slit level particle behavior is found. There is a large debate whether consciousness is involved in this behaviour. My preliminary view is that consciousness is different for different observers. Hence if consciousness is involved then we should have different outcomes varying from particle to wave behavior for each observer. Hence the either/or behaviour of double slit experiment may be more logically attributed to consciousness, simple or otherwise, of the particles themselves. Is this idea acceptable?